Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters

[Aris Merchant]

No, never mind, I don't think it does. I can make it work.


-Aris

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:54 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> If no one objects, I'm going to make it support, object, or resolve,
> on the basis that it's a bit easier to write and has a similar effect.
>
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Actually, on reflection I think zombies are locked out of *all* dependent
>> action steps (intent, support, or object).  Even if my legal theory doesn't
>> hold water, it's a good nerf in any case so I'd likely vote for that, most
>> things that are really sensitive are locked behind dependent action (and
>> that would also make the deregister w/3consent a genuine check on power,
>> if the zombies became concentrated in too few hands).
>>
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
>>> > > I don't think there's anything preventing the Zombie from stating the
>>> > > intent and the master supporting.  Which e would have had to do anyway,
>>> > > since you can only appoint _another_ player to Speaker by this 
>>> > > mechanism.
>>>
>>> That depends.  Intent is only defined after-the-fact (did someone announce
>>> intent earlier?) which implies that it's simply a message.  That matters
>>> because of this (R2466):
>>> > in particular, a person CANNOT act on behalf of another
>>> >  person to send a message, only to perform specific actions that
>>> >  might be taken within a message.
>>>
>>> Is announcing intent a message, or an action taken within a message?
>>>
>>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>> > Okay, I've had enough of this. Zombies break too much of the ruleset.
>>>
>>> These issues with act-on-behalf are the only thing that make the whole
>>> mess of useless contract-language currently in the rules have any
>>> interest - I'd appreciate being able to see how these work (issues like
>>> the above) using the zombie testbed.
>>>
>>> > They most definitely should not be appointing people Speaker.
>>>
>>> Being able to appoint a Speaker w/1 support is an awfully low bar -
>>> maybe that's the real problem here.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters

[Aris Merchant]

If no one objects, I'm going to make it support, object, or resolve,
on the basis that it's a bit easier to write and has a similar effect.


-Aris

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> Actually, on reflection I think zombies are locked out of *all* dependent
> action steps (intent, support, or object).  Even if my legal theory doesn't
> hold water, it's a good nerf in any case so I'd likely vote for that, most
> things that are really sensitive are locked behind dependent action (and
> that would also make the deregister w/3consent a genuine check on power,
> if the zombies became concentrated in too few hands).
>
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
>> > > I don't think there's anything preventing the Zombie from stating the
>> > > intent and the master supporting.  Which e would have had to do anyway,
>> > > since you can only appoint _another_ player to Speaker by this mechanism.
>>
>> That depends.  Intent is only defined after-the-fact (did someone announce
>> intent earlier?) which implies that it's simply a message.  That matters
>> because of this (R2466):
>> > in particular, a person CANNOT act on behalf of another
>> >  person to send a message, only to perform specific actions that
>> >  might be taken within a message.
>>
>> Is announcing intent a message, or an action taken within a message?
>>
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> > Okay, I've had enough of this. Zombies break too much of the ruleset.
>>
>> These issues with act-on-behalf are the only thing that make the whole
>> mess of useless contract-language currently in the rules have any
>> interest - I'd appreciate being able to see how these work (issues like
>> the above) using the zombie testbed.
>>
>> > They most definitely should not be appointing people Speaker.
>>
>> Being able to appoint a Speaker w/1 support is an awfully low bar -
>> maybe that's the real problem here.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters

[Aris Merchant]

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:43 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen 
> wrote:
> > > I don't think there's anything preventing the Zombie from stating the
> > > intent and the master supporting.  Which e would have had to do anyway,
> > > since you can only appoint _another_ player to Speaker by this
> mechanism.
>
> That depends.  Intent is only defined after-the-fact (did someone announce
> intent earlier?) which implies that it's simply a message.  That matters
> because of this (R2466):
> > in particular, a person CANNOT act on behalf of another
> >  person to send a message, only to perform specific actions that
> >  might be taken within a message.
> Is announcing intent a message, or an action taken within a message?


I disagree. Announcing intent is an action by definition, and a game action
because the game looks at it.

>
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Okay, I've had enough of this. Zombies break too much of the ruleset.
>
> These issues with act-on-behalf are the only thing that make the whole
> mess of useless contract-language currently in the rules have any
> interest - I'd appreciate being able to see how these work (issues like
> the above) using the zombie testbed.
>
> > They most definitely should not be appointing people Speaker.
>
> Being able to appoint a Speaker w/1 support is an awfully low bar -
> maybe that's the real problem here.


I've been thinking about it. I kinda agree, but on the other hand there are
advantages. We never would have pulled off that making Trigon Speaker
before e even noticed thing with a high bar, and that's a nice thing to
have. I've thought of two sensible thing to do to harden that requirement.
First, we could make it with three support, which is a fairly low bar. But
it is a bar, so I don't really like that. The second one, which I'd prefer,
is to make it dependent on karma. Making it just the top person is too
boring though. How about requiring the appointed person to be one of the
top three eligible (i.e. neither PM nor Speaker).

-Aris

>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters

[Kerim Aydin]

Actually, on reflection I think zombies are locked out of *all* dependent
action steps (intent, support, or object).  Even if my legal theory doesn't
hold water, it's a good nerf in any case so I'd likely vote for that, most
things that are really sensitive are locked behind dependent action (and
that would also make the deregister w/3consent a genuine check on power,
if the zombies became concentrated in too few hands).

On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> > > I don't think there's anything preventing the Zombie from stating the
> > > intent and the master supporting.  Which e would have had to do anyway,
> > > since you can only appoint _another_ player to Speaker by this mechanism.
> 
> That depends.  Intent is only defined after-the-fact (did someone announce
> intent earlier?) which implies that it's simply a message.  That matters
> because of this (R2466):
> > in particular, a person CANNOT act on behalf of another
> >  person to send a message, only to perform specific actions that
> >  might be taken within a message.
> 
> Is announcing intent a message, or an action taken within a message?
> 
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Okay, I've had enough of this. Zombies break too much of the ruleset.
> 
> These issues with act-on-behalf are the only thing that make the whole
> mess of useless contract-language currently in the rules have any
> interest - I'd appreciate being able to see how these work (issues like
> the above) using the zombie testbed.
> 
> > They most definitely should not be appointing people Speaker.
> 
> Being able to appoint a Speaker w/1 support is an awfully low bar -
> maybe that's the real problem here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters

[Kerim Aydin]

> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> > I don't think there's anything preventing the Zombie from stating the
> > intent and the master supporting.  Which e would have had to do anyway,
> > since you can only appoint _another_ player to Speaker by this mechanism.

That depends.  Intent is only defined after-the-fact (did someone announce
intent earlier?) which implies that it's simply a message.  That matters
because of this (R2466):
> in particular, a person CANNOT act on behalf of another
>  person to send a message, only to perform specific actions that
>  might be taken within a message.

Is announcing intent a message, or an action taken within a message?

On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Okay, I've had enough of this. Zombies break too much of the ruleset.

These issues with act-on-behalf are the only thing that make the whole
mess of useless contract-language currently in the rules have any
interest - I'd appreciate being able to see how these work (issues like
the above) using the zombie testbed.

> They most definitely should not be appointing people Speaker.

Being able to appoint a Speaker w/1 support is an awfully low bar -
maybe that's the real problem here.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters

[Aris Merchant]

Okay, I've had enough of this. Zombies break too much of the ruleset. They
most definitely should not be appointing people Speaker.

I move we repeal them.

-Aris

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> >> N I was a second away from using my zombie to appoint myself
> speaker.
> >
> >
> > Ørjan offered a theory that zombies CANNOT support anything - while it
>
> I don't think there's anything preventing the Zombie from stating the
> intent and the master supporting.  Which e would have had to do anyway,
> since you can only appoint _another_ player to Speaker by this mechanism.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:


On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:

N I was a second away from using my zombie to appoint myself speaker.



Ørjan offered a theory that zombies CANNOT support anything - while it


I don't think there's anything preventing the Zombie from stating the 
intent and the master supporting.  Which e would have had to do anyway, 
since you can only appoint _another_ player to Speaker by this mechanism.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters

[Reuben Staley]

I would be honored to serve as the speaker. Thank you for this 
opportunity. *frantically looks over rules about the Speaker*


On 4/29/2018 2:17 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 12:31 AM Edward Murphy  wrote:


Aris wrote:


I object strongly, given that e is inactive. I don't think a zombie

should

hold an office as ceremonially important as that of Speaker. I intend,

with

support, to appoint each of Trigon and ATMunn as Speaker (they're tied

for

the highest karma of anyone not excluded).


I support both.

Because Trigon now has the greater karma, and with no disrespect intended

towards ATMunn, I cause Trigon to become Speaker with support. Serve
honorably and well.

-Aris

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com



--
Trigon

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> N I was a second away from using my zombie to appoint myself speaker.


Ørjan offered a theory that zombies CANNOT support anything - while it
hasn't been tested in court, I agree with it because of use of the word
"consent" in R2124:
>  A Supporter of a dependent action is an eligible entity who has
>  publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. "consent")

To give consent, a person must "act as emself" (R2519):
>  A person gives consent (syn. consents) to an action when e, acting
>  as emself, publicly states that e agrees to the action.

It's not just a semantic trick based on an accidental double definition.
I think it makes sense, in terms of persons offering willful agreement,
that masters can't agree to agreement changes on behalf of zombies, but
can object to them on their zombies' behalf (because objections prevent
agreement-changes without consent).

DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters

[Ned Strange]

N I was a second away from using my zombie to appoint myself speaker.

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:17 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 12:31 AM Edward Murphy  wrote:
>
>> Aris wrote:
>>
>> > I object strongly, given that e is inactive. I don't think a zombie
>> should
>> > hold an office as ceremonially important as that of Speaker. I intend,
>> with
>> > support, to appoint each of Trigon and ATMunn as Speaker (they're tied
>> for
>> > the highest karma of anyone not excluded).
>>
>> I support both.
>>
>> Because Trigon now has the greater karma, and with no disrespect intended
> towards ATMunn, I cause Trigon to become Speaker with support. Serve
> honorably and well.
>
> -Aris



-- 
>From V.J. Rada